Is This A GB A66 Scott # 128d ?

Is this a GB A66 Scott # 128d ?

I could not see a watermark on this stamp.
Perhaps because of the heavy cancel bleeding through.

I tried lighter fluid and then naphtha, which I just recently read about to possibly see a Wmk, but nothing appeared.
I also tried a color enhancement scan change, which I learned last week, but again nothing.
Maybe I just did not do it correctly.

Please help with identifying this stamp.
Thanks

Hello; I don't know what catalogue you use ,but in Scott it's 128 f no WMK $45.00.So stop looking for something that's not there.

Based on the 1904 date on the cancel, it cannot be #128f (no watermark) nor a #147. Both of those were not produced until 1911.

It is a watermarked #128. The heavy cancel is probably obscuring the watermark detection.

Naptha, could you explain your process here, please?
I have not come across this before.

Postmark possibly "Oxford" It is.

EKU = Earliest Known Use 5th August 1903.

Interesting commentary on watermarking :

https://www.reddit.com/r/philately/.../watermarks/

Rod, that is interesting. It also leaves naptha out - not that I have ever tried it!


Peter

Hi Peter,
Never come across the reference "Naptha" before.

I use Ronsonal regularly, I always recall seeing a Philatelist expertising a stamp worth in excess of $100,000. (the stamp in question, I cannot recall)
He Watermark tested in lighter fluid, I concluded if it was OK for that, then I would use it.

That piece brings the process into question.

I like the suggestion watermarking in water, I have done that for years on used, but never seen it in print before.

Thank-you all for responding.

perf12 :
I have a set of used 1989 Scott Catalogues, four volumes.
My book does not show an "f" listing. (please see below)
And since I am still very new to this, I must make due with what I can.

khj :
My stamp is a perf 14 so I was sure it was not #147 ( which is perf 15x14 ).
But I did not know and my book makes no reference about the "no watermark" stamp only being produced in 1911. That certainly clears things up. Thanks.

rod222 :
Good article.
I use Naphtha just the same as lighter fluid. Just four or five drops to cover the stamp.
The naphtha last much longer before evaporating, thus I can see the image longer.
And since all my stamps are used with a low probability of having much value, I am not worried about damaging one. And so far, I have had no bad effects from its use on about 1000 stamps.

Ronsonol used to contain 99% naphtha pre 2010 until it was bought out by Zippo. Ronsonol is manufactured by Zippo with 30% naphtha as is Zippo.

Here is a more recent 2013 data sheet on Ronsonol. No one likes to us the naphtha word anymore. This ingredient list states distillates(petroleum), light distillate hydrotreating process. The latter another name for naphtha.

http://images11.palcdn.com/hlr-syst..._25_2016.pdf

Naphtha is white gas or shellite. See alternative names in the article.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Naphtha

Thanks Randy / members.

If Naptha is Shellite, then I am using that to soak some self-stick Australian Stamps.
(Drycleaning fluid)

I note my country town no longer sells Ronsonol, I am currently using
VENTTI (Extra Refined) Lighter fluid made by Swedish Match.

I cannot find any ingredients list on this product. No Naptha quoted on any info.

Ventti does not appear to contain naphtha but does consist of propane, iso-butane and n-butane.


https://galvinhw.grace2.com.au/grac...20070301.pdf